R. RAMANUJAM, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner is a wine shop owner in Somendapalli village in anantapur District. He was granted with an IL-24 licence under the provisions of the a. P. Excise Act for the Excise year 1998-99 by the Excise Department. The petitioner then commenced his business in the name and style of M/s. Pawn Wines at somandapalli village. ( 2 ) ON 7-11-1998 at about 10 a. m. , during the raids conducted by the officers of the Prohibition and Excise Department, hindupur, it was found that a person by name Mangala Maruthi Prasad was standing with a polythene bag at the tank bound situated at a distance of 1 1/2 K. Ms, from somandapally on N. H. No. 7 road. On suspicion, the said Mangala Maruthi Prasad was detained by the Prohibition and Excise inspector i. e. , the 4th respondent herein. On enquiry,. it appears that the said Mangala maruthi Prasad has stated that he was carrying about 150 arrack sanchets, each containing 100 ml of arrack. It appears that the said person further stated that the said arrack sachets were supplied by the petitioner for selling it at Somandepally on commission basis. Thereupon, the 4th respondent- prohibition and Excise Inspector drawn samples of the arrack for chemical analysis, arrested the said Mangala Maruthi Prasad, sezied the property and registered a case in crime No. 47 of 1998-99 under Section 7 (1) read with Section 8 (e) of the A. P. Prohibition act 1995. ( 3 ) THEREAFTER, on the basis of the confessional statement made by the said mangala Maruthi Prasad, the 3rd respondent- prohibition and Excise Superintendent by his order dated 27-11-1998 suspended the licence granted to the petitioner pending investigation into the matter. ( 4 ) THEREAFTER, a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner by the 3rd responderit- prohibition and Excise Superintendent, in his proceedings dated 27-11-1998 calling upon the petitioner to show-cause as to why the licence granted to him cannot be cancelled. The petitioner submitted his explanation thereto. A second show- cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 20-12-1998, but, instead of submitting his explanation to the said show-cause notice, the petitioner submitted a representation to the 2nd respondent-Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise explaining his case as to why his licence cannot be cancelled. The petitioner submitted his explanation thereto. A second show- cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 20-12-1998, but, instead of submitting his explanation to the said show-cause notice, the petitioner submitted a representation to the 2nd respondent-Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise explaining his case as to why his licence cannot be cancelled. On that the 2nd respondnet- deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and excise informed the petitioner, on 12-1- 1999 that since the enquiry was pending before the 3rd respondent-Prohibition and excise Superintendent, the request of the petitioner to restore his licence could not be considered. ( 5 ) THE 3rd respondent-Prohibition and excise Superintendent then issued an order in Re. N0. 1004/98/a1 dated 14-1-1999, cancelling the licence of the petitioner bearing L No. 222/98-99, in exercise of the powers conferred on him under Section 31 (1) of A. P. Excise Act, 1961 read with Rule 66 of A. P. Indian Liquor and Foreign Liquor rules, 1970. Against that order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the 2nd respondent-Deputy Commissioner of prohibition and Excise. ( 6 ) THE main contention advanced on behalf of the petitioner in that appeal was that his licence cannot be cancelled on the basis of a mere confessional statement of an accused person in Crime No. 47 of 1998-99 without there being any independent evidence regarding the involvement of the petitioner. The 2nd respondent-Deputy commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, while agreeing with the aforesaid contention, held the petitioner guilty on the ground that he was caught red handed by the police in an another case in Crime No. 27 of 1998 on 5-5-1998 while carrying arrack sachets. Accordingly, he confirmed the order passed by the 3rd respodnent-Prohibition and Excise superintendent by his order dated 4-3-1999. ( 7 ) AGGRIEVED by the aforesaid order, the petitioner filed a further appeal to the 1st respondent-Commissioner of Prohibition and excise as provided under Section 63 of the a. P. Excise Act. In that appeal, it was again contended on behalf of the petitioner, that his licence cannot be cancelled on the confessional statement given by an accused in Crime No. 47/98-99. That contention was not found favour with the 1st respondent, who dismissed the appeal stating that:"i have gone through the records placed before me. The accused person revealed his name as Mangala Maruthi Prasad. That contention was not found favour with the 1st respondent, who dismissed the appeal stating that:"i have gone through the records placed before me. The accused person revealed his name as Mangala Maruthi Prasad. The accused revealed that Sri V. P. Thimmayya licensee of M/s. Pawan wines, Somandapally has supplied the arrack sachets for selling them at somandapally on commission basis of rs. 150/ -. Hence, it is clearly evident that the licensee under the guise of IML licence indulged in illegally selling arrack sachets for his personal illegal gains. The Deputy Commissioner, Anantapur properly appreciated the facts in dismissing the appeal. No material evidence in placed before this Court to deviate from the findings of the Deputy commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, anantapur. " ( 8 ) CHALLENGING the validity of the aforesaid order of cancellation of the petitioner s licence by the 3rd respondent- prohibition and Excise Superintendent dated 14-1-1999 as confirmed by the 2nd respondent-Deputy Commissioner of prohibition and Excise by his order dated 4-3-1999 and the 1st respondent- commissioner of Prohibition and Excise by his order dated 18-6-1999, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. ( 9 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner has not violated any of the conditions of the licence and, therefore, his licence cannot be cancelled under Section 31 (1) of the a. P. Excise Act, 1961 read with Rule 66 of A. P. Indian Liquor and Foreign Liquor rules, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as the rules ) on the basis of the confessional statement made by an accused in Crime no. 47/98-99 when there is no independent evidence to link him with that offence. ( 10 ) THE learned Government Pleader for Prohibition and Excise, Mr. G. Chandraiah, however, sought to justify the order passed under Section 31 (1) of A. P. Excise Act, 1961 read with Rule 66 of A. P. Indian Liquor and Foreign Liquor Rules, 1970. He further submitted that a revision is provided against the order of the 1st respondent-Commissioner of Prohibition and excise to the Government under Section 64 of the Act. Since the petitioner has approached this Court straight-away without exhausting that remedy, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed in limini. He further submitted that a revision is provided against the order of the 1st respondent-Commissioner of Prohibition and excise to the Government under Section 64 of the Act. Since the petitioner has approached this Court straight-away without exhausting that remedy, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed in limini. ( 11 ) THE licence that was granted to the petitioner was under Rule 23 of the a. P. Indian Liquor and Foreign Liquor rules, 1970 in Form IL 24. Section 31 of the A. P. Excise Act, 1968 confers powers upon the authority, who has granted such licence, to cancel the same. It is appropriate to extract the said provision in toto. "31 (1) Subject to such restrictions as may be prescribed, the authority granting any licence or permit under this Act may cancel or suspend it (irrespective of the period of which the licence or permit relates) (a) If any duty or fee payable by the holder thereof is not duly paid; or (b) In the event of any breach by the holder thereof, or by any of his servants or by any one acting on his behalf with his express or implied permission, of any of the terms and conditions thereof; or (c) If the holder thereof or any of his servants or any one acting on his behalf with his express or implied permission, is convicted of any offence under this Act; or (d) If the holder thereof is convicted of any cognizable and non-bailable offence or of any offence under the (The narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic substances Act, 1985 (Central Act 61 of 1985)) or under the Medicinal and Toilet preparations (Excise Duties) Act, 1955 or under the Trade and Merchandise marks Act, 1958 or under Section 481, section 482, Section 483, Section 484, section 485, Section 486, Section 487, section 488, Section 489 of the Indian penal Code or of any offence punishable under Section 112 or Section 114 of the customs Act, 1962, (irrespective of the fact whether such conviction relates to the period earlier or subsequent to the grant of licence or permit; or) (e) If the conditions of the licence or permit provide for such cancellation or suspension at will: provided that no licence or permit shall be cancelled or suspended unless the holder thereof is given an opportunity of making his representation against the action proposed. (2) Where a licence or permit held by any person is cancelled under clause (a), clause (b), clause (c) or clause (d) of sub-section (1), the authority aforesaid may cancel any other licence granted or permit issued to such persons under this act, or under the Opium Act, 1878. (3) The holder of licence or permit shall not be entitled to any compensation for its cancellation or suspension nor to the refund of any fee paid or deposit made in respect thereof. Even though the impugned cancellation order does not specify the sub-clause of section 31 (1) under which the licence was cancelled, the learned Government Pleader for Prohibition and Excise submits that it is under clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 31 of the Act. Clause (b) of sub- section (1) of Section 31 of the Act extracted hereinabove, read with Rule 66 of the rules, no doubt authorises the authority to cancel the licence if the holder has committed breach of any of the terms and conditions of the licence. ( 12 ) THE general conditions, applicable to all Indian Liquor/foreign Liquor and beer licences in Form IL 24, are contained in the proforma licence prescribed under the rules. Condition No. 6 thereof, which was relied upon by the learned Government pleader for Prohibition and Excise, reads as under:"the licensee shall sell only duty paid (Indian liquor) in sealed, capsuled bottles affixed with Excise adhesive labels and manufacturers labels duly approved by the Commissioner of Excise as required, under these rules. It is the submission of the learned government Pleader for Prohibition and excise that the licence of the petitioner was cancelled for contravention of the aforesaid condition. " ( 13 ) A close reading of the aforesaid condition clearly shows that the licensee shall only sell duty paid liquor in sealed, capsuled bottles affixed with Excise adhesive labels and manufacturers labels. ( 14 ) IN this case, there is no allegation against the petitioner that he was selling any non-duty paid Indian liquor in loose quantity in his wine shop. In fact, the entire basis for the cancellation order, as noted hereinabove, is that one Mangala Maruthi Prasad, who was the accused in Crime No. 47/98-99 of hindupur Prohibition and Excise Station, confessed on 7-11-1998 that the arrack sachets which were in his possession were supplied by the petitioner. In fact, the entire basis for the cancellation order, as noted hereinabove, is that one Mangala Maruthi Prasad, who was the accused in Crime No. 47/98-99 of hindupur Prohibition and Excise Station, confessed on 7-11-1998 that the arrack sachets which were in his possession were supplied by the petitioner. It may be noted here that the petitioner herein is not even an accused in that crime. It is a settled law that a confessional statement of an accused cannot be used against the other accused let alone a person who is not even an accused in that crime. Even if it is assumed that the petitioner has supplied those arrack sachets to that accused person, it does not amount violation of the aforesaid Condition No. 6, since there was no sale of such liquor in the petitioner s wine shop. It is, therefore, clear that the petitioner has not violated any of the terms and conditions of the licnece granted in his favour warranting cancellation of the same under Section 31 (b) of the Act read with Rule 66 of the Rules. As already noted, the 2nd respondent-Deputy commissioner of Prohibition and Excise himself held that the petitioner cannot be made liable on mere confessional statement of an accused person, but, confirmed the order of cancellation entirely on an extraneous ground that the petitioner could not satisfactorily explain his involvement in another case booked against him in :rime No. 27/98 of Parigi Police Station on 5-5-1998 for transporting certain arrack sachets. Involvement of the petitioner in that crime, in my considered view, can never be a ground for cancellation of the petitioner s licence under Section 31 (1) of the A. P. Excise Act, 1968 read with Rule 66 of the A. P. Indian Liquor and Foreign Liquor rules, 1970. It, therefore, follows that the mpugned order of cancellation of the petitioner s licence by the 3rd respondent- prohibition and Excise Superintendent as confirmed by the 2nd respondent-Deputy ommissioner of Prohibition and Excise and the 1st respondent-Commissioner of prohibition and Excise is without lawful authority. ( 15 ) IT is no doubt true that under section 64 of the Act, the Government is conferred with the revisional powers, either suo motu or on an application, for the purpose of satisfying itself as to correctness, legality or, propriety of an order passed under the Act. ( 15 ) IT is no doubt true that under section 64 of the Act, the Government is conferred with the revisional powers, either suo motu or on an application, for the purpose of satisfying itself as to correctness, legality or, propriety of an order passed under the Act. But, in my considered view, such a revision is not an alternative efficacious remedy in this case in view of the facts and circumstances stated hereinabove and in particular the fact that the order of cancellation passed by the 3rd respondent-Prohibition and Excise superintendent is without any lawful authority. Furthermore, this writ petition was admitted on 10-11-1999 and an interim suspension of the impugned order was also granted on the very same day. Time allowed for filing revision before the revisional authority expired long back. Considering these facts, I am of the view that it would be unjust now to direct the petitioner to approach the Government by filing a revision against the order of the 1st respondent-Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise. ( 16 ) FOR the aforementioned reasons, the writ petition is allowed. A writ of mandamus shall issue declaring the cancellation order issued by the 3rd respondent-Prohibition and excise Superintendent as confirmed by the 2nd respondent-Deputy Commissioner of prohibition and Excise and the 1st respondent-Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise dated 14-1-1999, 4-3-1999 and 18-6-1999 respectively as illegal and arbitrary. No costs.